User talk:Jeni: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:43, 19 July 2009

Jeni

User · Awards · Talk · Contributions · E-mail

School infoboxes

Hi Jeni, I added an info box for the first time to a school page, Aston Fields Middle School, using the recommended tepmplate method. Could you please check that I have done this correctly. if you know a way of automating this, better still ;). Thanks. BTW, if you know of any other photos that need making in the county (irrespective of project), esp. around the Droitwich-Malvern-Worcestre-Upton-Pershore area, don't hesitate to give me a wish list. I will be at home in the UK in Malvern for a month soon and will have rather a lot of time to spare.--Kudpung (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Chris.[reply]

Yeah that looks fine to me! :) As for photos I am slowly working my way through the village articles to find photos on Geograph for them, *most* are available. So far I have made it as far as Illey in Category:Villages in Worcestershire. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 10:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a script or a tool for quickly adding photos (and/or other stuff) to infoboxes? - because of my connection it takes me about 1/2 hr to manually add one by opening the edit page etc.--Kudpung (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not, though there is a script to upload photos from Geograph to Commons [1], though they still need to be added to articles. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 12:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is no no longer relevant to my talk page... take it to Talk:Southport where there is already a discussion. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 22:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

southport

please go back and look what i did.....i did not delete southport....i changed it to southport england and made southport the disamiguation page.....i will trust you will fix what you have done. ASSUME GOOD FAITH! WillC (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely blanked the page. Your move has now been undone, discuss controversial moves like that first. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 16:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fine, let's discuss....you go look at all the different places in the world named southport on the disambiguation page and then explain why wikipedia defaults to the city in england instead of the disambiguation page. that a page was blanked is not germaine to this conversation...the info was redirected/moved to a more logical place. WillC (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is not an appropriate venue for the discussion, try Talk:Southport. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you realize it was a redirect page that was blanked? it was obsolete! WillC (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do realise it was a redirect, and it is still blanking. Perhaps you should read up on Wikipedia policies. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you reversed everything before i could clean it up per wikipedia policies. you jumped the gun and now you need to fix it. WillC (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a) You blanked a redirect for no reason. b) you did a copy and paste move. c) you made a controversial move without starting a discussion. I already fixed it when I reverted your changes. If you want the page moved, go down the proper channels. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 20:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are avoiding the issue. you are acting provincial. WillC (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, Southport in England is by far the largest settlement with the same name, covered in more sources, is more widely known, and as a result it is likely that when someone enters "Southport" into the search box they're looking for the place in England. For the benefit of wikipedia's readers, WP:PRIME states "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article". Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i contest its primacy....i have never heard of the enlish town before today....i was looking up southport for southport, north carolina....which is a hotbed for filming american movies....you are not being geo-neutral. the proper thing to do is default "southport" to the disambiguation page. WillC (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southport, North Carolina has a population of 2,351, compared to the 99,456 inhabitants of Southport, UK. Nowhere near as important. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 22:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that you are accusing others of "not being geo-neutral" as your argument seems to hinge on you having never heard of the place in England because you are from America. I can also say that I've never heard of Southport in Carolina, but that's irrelevant as the Southport in England is still more likely to be searched for. Nev1 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liverpool

Hi, hope this is the right place/page location/format to ask you a question. You reverted a ^{[citation needed]} tag removal I did a few minutes ago. I'm genuinely confused. The fact Hawthorne was consul to Liverpool seems (imho) to be verified on the Nathaniel Hawthorne page. Is it the dates specifically that you are asking for? If not, what? Also a genuine question from a relative greenhorn. Surely it is not necessary to cite the same facts over again in every article that may link to another article where they are cited? Perhaps you can concisely clear-up best practice for me and I might learn something. Thanks. RodCrosby (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the same facts need to be cited in every article they are given (apart from the obvious things like "the sky is blue"). Simply "citing" another Wikipedia article is not enough, as Wikipedia itself is not classed as a reliable source. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 02:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulp.... that is awesome, no-one has ever told me that before, and to be honest, it's so counter-intuitive that it appears to defeat the whole object of the WP exercise. I can't really get my head around it. Why bother with links at all? is one obvious question. Another is where do you draw the line? It seems fairly arbitrary to me. Kind of a minefield. One person's "sky is blue" is another's "except at night" if you get my drift... Make's me wonder about continuing with this. I only have the one life..... Thanks for the tip anyhow. I wish you could share some legal "loophole" with me. RodCrosby (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with links at all? -- They are there for navigation purposes, to help readers move around our website. They are not generally for citation. It can be a mindfield but I think you're doing pretty good work now. --Jza84 | Talk 10:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appletreewick

I edited the Appletreewick page, adding that the village is in the West Riding of Yorkshire. I believe you then deleted this contribution.

My addition was accurate. When the boundaries of the administrative counties of England were changed in 1974 the government made it very clear that the traditional counties had not been abolished. What had happened was that the traditional boundaries were no longer to be used for administrative purposes. Since the Local Government Act 1888 the traditional counties had been used for administrative purposes, but they were created between the ninth century and the twelfth century. The government was explicit on 1st April 1974 upon implementating of the Local Government Act 1972 when a Government Circular said:

"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change."

(This circular is now fairly famous (at least amongst those of us who believe the counties should be recognised) and you can see it on the websites of the Association of British Counties (whose map of the British counties is widely used across the internet) the Yorkshire Ridings Society and the Friends of Real Lancashire.)

So, from 1st April 1974 to the present day, Appletreewick has been in the Craven District of North Yorkshire, for administrative purposes but it remained the West Riding of Yorkshire. Appletreewick has been in the West Riding of Yorkshire since Yorkshire was created in the ninth century by the Danes.

I did not delete the reference to Craven District or North Yorkshire. I merely inserted the fact that these are administrative areas, which is entirely accurate. The UK country is divided up into administrative units for the purposes of local government and many areas, including Appletreewick, fall under two tiers of local authority administration. This does not change the fact the country is also divided up into traditional counties, which have - but not always - been used for administration.

As a result of my changes, the reader was informed that Appletreewick is in the West Riding of Yorkshire and two levels of administrative area, Craven and North Yorkshire